Boomin' Bomber I.J.
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2017
- Messages
- 271
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Dono jhootay hain.... fact is PA messed up on an operation that was initially highly successful.
Panama leak Case Proceedings - JIT Report, News, Updates And Discussion
- Thread starter war&peace
- Start date
- Status
Dono jhootay hain.... fact is PA messed up on an operation that was initially highly successful.
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
How can they decide on disqualification ...based on those 13 questions? Acc to which article? 62/63 ki basis par hi decide hona hoga..if NS statemebts have been proven lies...based on JIT investigations....phir shayad yeh legal dishonesty ban jayegi..acc to pakora judge... I think....lekin disqualification tu 62/63 ki basis par hi hogi...mujhe lagta hai
Waisy did you listen to Justice Khosa's audio?? Unki baat se tu aisa lag raha tha ke final verdict main 5 judges shamil honge?
Even Justce Wajihuddin thinks the same.. Jaisy pehle bhi bataya tha..unka POV..
Agar is bench main new judges hotay tu woh sirf JIT ki monitoring tak rehtay.. Aur phir final verdict ke liye in hi 5 judges ke pass aata shayad..ab bhi shayad aisa hi ho? Jo bhi ho..SC should clarify this, at the earliest
PakSword
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 19,505
- Reaction score
- 103
- Country
- Location
Let's go one by one..
- First of all, it is an implementation bench as well as monitoring..
- Implementation bench means, it has to "implement the decision". Which decision? please read the following..
- The decision does not include probe on 62/ 63.
- The decision doesn't say that implementation bench shall present the findings before the same 5 member bench.
- The decision includes investigation on the 13 questions only by the JIT under the monitoring bench.. The monitoring bench needs to present the findings to the implementation bench.. which is a 3 member bench. Meaning 3 member monitoring bench will provide the findings to itself being the implementation bench.
- implementation bench will decide on the disqualification.. (if the crime of money laundering and ill gotten money is proved in the investigation, not 62/ 62..)
Boomin' Bomber I.J.
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2017
- Messages
- 271
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Keep my country's airplanes out of it!
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Being proven a money launderer doesnt directly disqualify you in Pakistan.. Wasim Akhtar took oath of mayor while being in jail.... In terrorism related cas
So disqualification ka agar question aaya...tu 62/63 par hi aayega... Tht whether he has been proven legally dishonest after JIT findings? Kia unhone ne qatari letter aur jo kaha tha..woh sach tha ya jhoot? Legal honesty or dishonesty then? Mera khyal hai ke 62/63 par hi aayaega disqualification ka matter
Justice Wajihuddin aur baqi bhtt saaray lawyers phir kiun keh rahay thy..k 5 member bench ke pass jayega? I think its the first of its kind case..aur jo bhi hoga,.is main new precedent set hoga..... so..SC should clarify this matter at the earliest... Lekin lagta hai ke humein bilkol end main verdict ke waqt hi pata chalay ga ke ...did votes of those two judges matter or not?
Last edited:
PakSword
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 19,505
- Reaction score
- 103
- Country
- Location
On Waseem Akhtar, it was a case, if proven, he will be out..
But as you said, SC should clarify.. What I have understood is that it will go to 3 member bench only.. Lets see.
Boomin' Bomber I.J.
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2017
- Messages
- 271
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Every institution of Pakistan is doing everything against the wishes of the people. I am so disgusted I am ready to give up my nationality but unfortunately no country would accept a Pakistani!
QatariPrince
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,494
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
QatariPrince
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,494
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Revisiting the Godfather analogy
“If Hamlet in his madness did amisse, That was not Hamlet but his madness did it, And all the wrong I e’re did to Leartes, I here proclaim was madness”.
The aforesaid verse was borrowed from, Shakespeare’s magnum opus “Hamlet”, by Judge Bostjan Zupancic of European Court of Justice for deciding the case of “Achour vs France” . The rationale behind use of the said verse was to elucidate on the difference between, the degree of criminal liability which arises out of a premeditated act and the extent of criminal liability arising out of an act caused by “loss of self control” or “diminished responsibility (insanity)”.
Court proceedings are often dreary and are seldom deemed as opportunities for sensation and innovation, however, over the years, few unconventional judges have taken advantage of their linguistic acuity, Shakespearean expressions and literary wisdom, to turn their rulings into compulsively readable masterpieces. One such non-conformist judge in our Apex judiciary is, the outstandingly gifted, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa. The flare of Justice Khosa’s language and his ability to author novel judgments with scholarly flavor is unparalleled and accounts for much of his popularity. The verdicts authored by Justice Khosa are generally couched with punchy, mesmerising and unassailable literary references, further clarifying the rationale behind his opinions. After giving, a deep analytical rigor to the law points settled by Justice Khosa over the last decade, one can easily figure out that apart from being a maestro jurist he is a well read individual possessing deep understanding of criminology, literature and philosophy.
Whilst ruling on a case, involving a controversy related to the alleged corruption and unexplained wealth of current Prime Minister of Pakistan, Justice Khosa started his dissenting note with Mario Puzo’s novel “The Godfather” epigraph; “Behind every great fortune there is a crime”.Although the Godfather Analogy, due to its indestructible vitality and magical significance has received far reaching approbation both at domestic and international fronts, however, a section of the public, particularly the, self proclaimed apostolic founders of constitutionalism and champions of abstract notions of rule of law, labeled the said Analogy as an audacious hyperbole having no foundation in constitutional law. Amusingly, some leaders and followers of the ruling party were also found rendering expert opinions, possessing overbearing insolence and artful mendacity, on the Godfather Analogy, proclaiming that law has nothing to do with literary and fictional references.
For personal reasons, right after the announcement of Panama Verdict, I forced myself not to write on the merits of the same, however, after reading some brainless opinions on the legality and relevance of Godfather Analogy, I felt constrained to present my view point at least on this particular issue. As a lawyer, I feel it my duty to call attention to certain judicial precedents which must be borne in mind, if one wants to form a fair opinion of what is written in the preamble of Justice Khosa’s dissenting note.
In US, UK, India and many other jurisdictions all over the world, references to work of authors like Shakespeare, Montesquieu, Balzac, Kafka, Faulkner, Ghalib and Faiz in superior court pronouncements is a norm. In 1999, Robert Peterson in his book “The Bard and the Bench”, pointed out that so fat all thirty seven Shakespeare’s plays have been quoted by American courts, in over 800 judicial opinions.
In “Budhadev vs West Bengal”, the ever flamboyant, Indian Supreme Court Judge, Markandey Katju, started his opinion by quoting Mirza Ghalib’s verse: “Pinha tha daam-e-sakht qareeb aashiyaan ke, Udhne hi na paaye the ki giraftaar hum hue“. In the same case, Mr. Katju made crafty references to the character of, Nancy in Charles Dicken’s “Oliver Twist”, Sonia in Dostoyevsky’s “Crime & Punishment” and Fantine in Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables”. Moreover, Justice Katju in “Gopal Dass vs Union Of India” began his judgment with a verse of Faiz“Qafas udas hai yaaron saba se kuch to kaho, Kaheen to beher-e-khuda aaj zikr-e-yaar chale” while issuing an appeal to Government of Pakistan for releasing an Indian citizen who was serving life sentence in Pakistan for twenty seven years.
Justice Katju in “Rajindera Singh vs Prem Mai”, for criticising the Indian justice system, quoted an extract from Charles Dickens novel “The Bleak House”: “This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse”.
Justice A K Ganguly in “Subramanian vs Manmohan Singh”, displeased by inordinate delays caused by the Prime Minister Office, explained the position of Prime Minister by quoting Shakespeare’s verse: “uneasy lies the head that wears a crown“. In Shri Shanmu vs State Of Maharashtra, a judge in Madras High Court whilst explaining “manslaughter by reckless driving” quoted Ghalib’s verse: “Rau mein hai rakhsh-e-umr kahan dekhiye thame, naey haath baag par hain na paa hai rakaab mein”.
In “Major Stake Limited vs Curtis”, Lord Scott in House of Lords averred “Harry Potter, we are told, received letters addressed to him at the Cupboard under the Stairs. The Cupboard under the Stairs might have constituted “premises” for the purpose of letters from Hogwarts but for the purposes of construction of the statute, a normal use of the English language must be assumed”.
The American Judges are one step ahead from their counterparts in other jurisdictions, apart from quoting literary references they are used to punching witty and sarcastic remarks in their rulings. In “Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment” Justice Elena Kagan used the opening lyrics from the 1967 Cartoon TV Show “The Spider-Man” in her verdict. Justice Antonin Scalia has used the words “Tutti-Frutti” (Sykes v. United States) “Argle-Bargle” (United States v. Windsor) and “Scotus Care” (King v. Burwell) in his opinions. In “Noble v. Bradford”, Judge James Paine made abundant references to the movie “Wayne’s World” in his ruling.
When Oscar Pistorius, the South African Paralympics sprint runner, was convicted of murdering his girlfriend, the presiding judge in South Africa described the case as a “Human Tragedy of Shakespearean Proportions” thus alluding towards the athlete’s fall from the esteemed Olympian heights into the murky dungeon of desolation.
Judicial rulings are often lengthy, unappealing and monotonous for an average reader; containing complex facts, extensive arguments, discussion on precedents (case laws) and finally the verdict. Literary references, if appropriately and intelligently used, make judicial rulings easier to comprehend as such references smoothly clarify the factual and legal issues involved in a dispute; in addition, citing references invest the judgment with credibility and invoke in it a sense of rationality and wisdom. Therefore, there is no harm, if a judge brings law and literature together and is inspired by the ways in which ideas are expressed by a novelist or a playwright.
Essentially there are two queries, in relation to the use Godfather Analogy, requiring discussion;
First, whether the said Analogy is a legal or constitutional anomaly? In the light of the foregoing discussion on the case laws from different jurisdictions, the answer to this query is in certainly in negative.
Second, whether Nawaz Sharif possesses the traits of Don Vito Corleone? Well, Carleone (Godfather) had strong links with the police, the media, the bureaucracy and the judiciary; they were literally on his payroll and operated according to his whims. Interestingly, the Sharifs, since their arrival on the political stage of Pakistan have obliged several generals, civil servants and judges (after retirement); in addition, they have blessed several journalists with esteemed government posts.
Einsteiniun intellect is not required to find out who was President of Pakistan in January 1998, who was Governor of Sindh in December 2016, who is Chairman PEMRA, Chairman of Pakistan Super League, Advisor to the Prime Minister on National History and Minister of Information Technology in Azad Kashmir. Hence, the Godfather Analogy also appears to be factually relevant, as the same (in just one sentence) gives an immensely detailed portrait of a powerful and mighty ruler, who has acquired assets beyond known sources of income, has failed to explain possession and acquisition of properties in London, was and still is immune law of the land.
@PakSword @Realistic Change
“If Hamlet in his madness did amisse, That was not Hamlet but his madness did it, And all the wrong I e’re did to Leartes, I here proclaim was madness”.
The aforesaid verse was borrowed from, Shakespeare’s magnum opus “Hamlet”, by Judge Bostjan Zupancic of European Court of Justice for deciding the case of “Achour vs France” . The rationale behind use of the said verse was to elucidate on the difference between, the degree of criminal liability which arises out of a premeditated act and the extent of criminal liability arising out of an act caused by “loss of self control” or “diminished responsibility (insanity)”.
Court proceedings are often dreary and are seldom deemed as opportunities for sensation and innovation, however, over the years, few unconventional judges have taken advantage of their linguistic acuity, Shakespearean expressions and literary wisdom, to turn their rulings into compulsively readable masterpieces. One such non-conformist judge in our Apex judiciary is, the outstandingly gifted, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa. The flare of Justice Khosa’s language and his ability to author novel judgments with scholarly flavor is unparalleled and accounts for much of his popularity. The verdicts authored by Justice Khosa are generally couched with punchy, mesmerising and unassailable literary references, further clarifying the rationale behind his opinions. After giving, a deep analytical rigor to the law points settled by Justice Khosa over the last decade, one can easily figure out that apart from being a maestro jurist he is a well read individual possessing deep understanding of criminology, literature and philosophy.
Whilst ruling on a case, involving a controversy related to the alleged corruption and unexplained wealth of current Prime Minister of Pakistan, Justice Khosa started his dissenting note with Mario Puzo’s novel “The Godfather” epigraph; “Behind every great fortune there is a crime”.Although the Godfather Analogy, due to its indestructible vitality and magical significance has received far reaching approbation both at domestic and international fronts, however, a section of the public, particularly the, self proclaimed apostolic founders of constitutionalism and champions of abstract notions of rule of law, labeled the said Analogy as an audacious hyperbole having no foundation in constitutional law. Amusingly, some leaders and followers of the ruling party were also found rendering expert opinions, possessing overbearing insolence and artful mendacity, on the Godfather Analogy, proclaiming that law has nothing to do with literary and fictional references.
For personal reasons, right after the announcement of Panama Verdict, I forced myself not to write on the merits of the same, however, after reading some brainless opinions on the legality and relevance of Godfather Analogy, I felt constrained to present my view point at least on this particular issue. As a lawyer, I feel it my duty to call attention to certain judicial precedents which must be borne in mind, if one wants to form a fair opinion of what is written in the preamble of Justice Khosa’s dissenting note.
In US, UK, India and many other jurisdictions all over the world, references to work of authors like Shakespeare, Montesquieu, Balzac, Kafka, Faulkner, Ghalib and Faiz in superior court pronouncements is a norm. In 1999, Robert Peterson in his book “The Bard and the Bench”, pointed out that so fat all thirty seven Shakespeare’s plays have been quoted by American courts, in over 800 judicial opinions.
In “Budhadev vs West Bengal”, the ever flamboyant, Indian Supreme Court Judge, Markandey Katju, started his opinion by quoting Mirza Ghalib’s verse: “Pinha tha daam-e-sakht qareeb aashiyaan ke, Udhne hi na paaye the ki giraftaar hum hue“. In the same case, Mr. Katju made crafty references to the character of, Nancy in Charles Dicken’s “Oliver Twist”, Sonia in Dostoyevsky’s “Crime & Punishment” and Fantine in Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables”. Moreover, Justice Katju in “Gopal Dass vs Union Of India” began his judgment with a verse of Faiz“Qafas udas hai yaaron saba se kuch to kaho, Kaheen to beher-e-khuda aaj zikr-e-yaar chale” while issuing an appeal to Government of Pakistan for releasing an Indian citizen who was serving life sentence in Pakistan for twenty seven years.
Justice Katju in “Rajindera Singh vs Prem Mai”, for criticising the Indian justice system, quoted an extract from Charles Dickens novel “The Bleak House”: “This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse”.
Justice A K Ganguly in “Subramanian vs Manmohan Singh”, displeased by inordinate delays caused by the Prime Minister Office, explained the position of Prime Minister by quoting Shakespeare’s verse: “uneasy lies the head that wears a crown“. In Shri Shanmu vs State Of Maharashtra, a judge in Madras High Court whilst explaining “manslaughter by reckless driving” quoted Ghalib’s verse: “Rau mein hai rakhsh-e-umr kahan dekhiye thame, naey haath baag par hain na paa hai rakaab mein”.
In “Major Stake Limited vs Curtis”, Lord Scott in House of Lords averred “Harry Potter, we are told, received letters addressed to him at the Cupboard under the Stairs. The Cupboard under the Stairs might have constituted “premises” for the purpose of letters from Hogwarts but for the purposes of construction of the statute, a normal use of the English language must be assumed”.
The American Judges are one step ahead from their counterparts in other jurisdictions, apart from quoting literary references they are used to punching witty and sarcastic remarks in their rulings. In “Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment” Justice Elena Kagan used the opening lyrics from the 1967 Cartoon TV Show “The Spider-Man” in her verdict. Justice Antonin Scalia has used the words “Tutti-Frutti” (Sykes v. United States) “Argle-Bargle” (United States v. Windsor) and “Scotus Care” (King v. Burwell) in his opinions. In “Noble v. Bradford”, Judge James Paine made abundant references to the movie “Wayne’s World” in his ruling.
When Oscar Pistorius, the South African Paralympics sprint runner, was convicted of murdering his girlfriend, the presiding judge in South Africa described the case as a “Human Tragedy of Shakespearean Proportions” thus alluding towards the athlete’s fall from the esteemed Olympian heights into the murky dungeon of desolation.
Judicial rulings are often lengthy, unappealing and monotonous for an average reader; containing complex facts, extensive arguments, discussion on precedents (case laws) and finally the verdict. Literary references, if appropriately and intelligently used, make judicial rulings easier to comprehend as such references smoothly clarify the factual and legal issues involved in a dispute; in addition, citing references invest the judgment with credibility and invoke in it a sense of rationality and wisdom. Therefore, there is no harm, if a judge brings law and literature together and is inspired by the ways in which ideas are expressed by a novelist or a playwright.
Essentially there are two queries, in relation to the use Godfather Analogy, requiring discussion;
First, whether the said Analogy is a legal or constitutional anomaly? In the light of the foregoing discussion on the case laws from different jurisdictions, the answer to this query is in certainly in negative.
Second, whether Nawaz Sharif possesses the traits of Don Vito Corleone? Well, Carleone (Godfather) had strong links with the police, the media, the bureaucracy and the judiciary; they were literally on his payroll and operated according to his whims. Interestingly, the Sharifs, since their arrival on the political stage of Pakistan have obliged several generals, civil servants and judges (after retirement); in addition, they have blessed several journalists with esteemed government posts.
Einsteiniun intellect is not required to find out who was President of Pakistan in January 1998, who was Governor of Sindh in December 2016, who is Chairman PEMRA, Chairman of Pakistan Super League, Advisor to the Prime Minister on National History and Minister of Information Technology in Azad Kashmir. Hence, the Godfather Analogy also appears to be factually relevant, as the same (in just one sentence) gives an immensely detailed portrait of a powerful and mighty ruler, who has acquired assets beyond known sources of income, has failed to explain possession and acquisition of properties in London, was and still is immune law of the land.
@PakSword @Realistic Change
Realistic Change
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 2
Verve
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,116
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Telltale signs of mammoth
NS is getting humiliated from every direction ... you can see it all on his face
Is this video maker the same who made the video of the 1 or 2 mile long tamboo jalsa that was busted as well?
Maybe Maryam should instruct Punjab police to ban phones and cameras on and around the NS's jalsagaas ... where are the barsati daddoos here who can pass her this message?
JOEY TRIBIANI
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,344
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
Na umeedi
El Sidd
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 67,587
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Joey sahib kabhi khush hojaen..
Chale apko khushkhabri deden.
Kis bat pe khush hojaege ap?
- Status
